Beyond Numbers, Ratings, and Rankings:���Connecting the Dots

ASCD Annual Conference Houston, TX���March 23, 2015 Charlotte Danielson The Danielson Group

Why “Do” Teacher Evaluation?

• Ensure teacher quality (accountability)

• Promote professional learning (professional growth)

There is tension between these two functions: - high stakes evaluation demands teachers to look as good as possible - learning entails vulnerability

Some Recent US History -- Summer 2009

A Question of Fairness

Teacher Hiring, Transfer and Evaluation in Los Angeles Unified School District, The New Teacher Project, November 2009

Teacher Evaluation System Design

High Rigor Low ←---------------------------------------

Level of Stakes -------------------→High

Low Rigor

Teacher Evaluation System Design

High Rigor

Structured Mentoring Programs, e.g. New Teacher Center

Low ←---------------------------------------

National Board Certification Praxis III Level of Stakes -------------------→High

Informal Mentoring Programs Traditional Evaluation Systems

Low Rigor

DANGER!!

Evaluation for Accountability: What’s Needed?

•  Technical defensibility: the system must be able to withstand challenge: - clear definition of practice - validated instrument - trained and certified evaluators

•  Professional defensibility: the system must promote learning - “We’re not going to fire our way to Finland” - activities and structures that promote learning

Accuracy is Not Sufficient: We have to “Move the Curve”

Num

ber o

f Tea

cher

s

Teacher Effectiveness

The Complexity of Teaching

“After 30 years of doing such work, I have concluded that classroom teaching … is perhaps the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced, and frightening activity that our species has ever invented. ..The only time a physician could possibly encounter a situation of comparable complexity would be in the emergency room of a hospital during or after a natural disaster”

Lee Shulman, The Wisdom of Practice

The Framework for Teaching

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Domain 3: Instruction

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

The Framework for Teaching

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities • Reflecting on Teaching • Maintaining Accurate Records • Communicating with Families • Participating in a Professional Community • Growing and Developing Professionally • Showing Professionalism

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation • Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

• Demonstrating Knowledge of Students • Setting Instructional Outcomes • Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources • Designing Coherent Instruction • Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment • Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

• Establishing a Culture for Learning • Managing Classroom Procedures • Managing Student Behavior • Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction • Communicating With Students • Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques • Engaging Students in Learning • Using Assessment in Instruction • Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Common Themes

•  Equity

• Cultural sensitivity

• High expectations

• Developmental appropriateness

•  Accommodating individual needs

•  Appropriate use of technology

•  Student Assumption of responsibility

Domain 2:The Classroom Environment 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

L E V E L O F P E R F O R M A N C E

ELEMENT UNSATISFACTORY BASIC PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED

Teacher Interaction with Students

Teacher interaction with at least some students is negative, demeaning, sarcastic, or inappropriate to the age or culture of the students. Students exhibit disrespect for the teacher.

Teacher-student interactions are generally appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, or disregard for students’ cultures. Students exhibit only minimal respect for the teacher.

Teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general caring and respect. Such interactions are appropriate to the age and cultures of the students. Students exhibit respect for the teacher.

Teacher’s interactions with students reflect genuine respect and caring, for individuals as well as groups of students. Students appear to trust the teacher with sensitive information.

Student Interactions with one another

Student interactions are characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs.

Students do not demonstrate disrespect for one another.

Student interactions are generally polite and respectful.

Students demonstrate genuine caring for one another and monitor one another’s treatment of peers, correcting classmates respectfully when needed.

DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT 2A: CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT OF RESPECT AND RAPPORT

Elements: Teacher interaction with students� Student interaction with one another

Figure 4.2b

Evolution of the Framework for Teaching

Feedback on the Framework for Teaching

• We love the FfT o  it provides a common language o  it helps us develop a shared understanding of good

teaching o  we can engage in rich professional conversations to

strengthen practice

•  BUT: it’s too big o  it’s cumbersome for everyday use

• One response: focus on only a few components of the fft o  how does one select?

The Framework for Teaching (It’s Still Evolving): The Six Clusters

Cluster 1: Clarity of Purpose and Accuracy of Content

Cluster 2: Safe, Respectful, Supportive, and Challenging Learning Environment

Cluster 3: Classroom Management

Cluster 4: Student Intellectual Engagement

Cluster 5: Successful Learning of All Students

Cluster 6: Professionalism

The Framework for Teaching Component “Clusters”

• Clarity of Purpose and Accuracy of Content: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 3a (explanations), 3b and 3c for alignment

•  Safe, Respectful, Supportive, and Challenging Learning Environment: 2a, 2b (expectations, student pride in work and perseverance)

• Classroom Management: 2c, 2d, 2e

•  Student Intellectual Engagement: 1e, 2b (importance), 3a, 3b, 3c

•  Successful Learning of All Students: 3d, 3e, 4a, 4b, 4c

•  Professionalism: 4d, 4e, 4f

The fft (2013) will, for the time being at least, continue to be the “foundational document”

Merging Accountability and Professional Learning into a Single System

•  Any system MUST be able to identify seriously under-performing teachers (probably no more than 5% of the total number of teachers)

•  For all other teachers, the evaluation system is designed to promote professional learning

•  An essential step in the system is the movement from probationary to continuing status

•  In subsequent years, the accountability aspect of the system ensures that teachers are “in good standing”

•  Beyond that, the emphasis is on self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversations, in an environment of trust and professional inquiry

Elements of a System

• Novice teachers: o  evaluated every year on an instructional framework (FfT) o  supported by a mentor using the same framework o  after three (?) years, decision made regarding

continuing contract status (tenure; “career” teachers) o  teachers on continuing contract are “in good standing”

• Career teachers o  evaluated periodically to ensure they are still in good

standing o  are eligible to apply for leadership positions (mentor,

coach, etc.), positions that may carry higher salaries o  engage in professional development (PLCs, lesson

study, etc. as their principal professional focus

The “Dots” to be Connected

• Mentoring and induction •  Professional development, e.g.

o  PLC’s o  Lesson study

•  Evaluation • Career pathways, including leadership roles, e.g.

o  Mentor o  Instructional coach o  Team leader/department chair

• Compensation

Career Stages

• Novice teacher

• Career teacher

• Mentor teacher

• Instructional coach

• Master teacher

Characteristics of the Professional Learning Aspect of a Complete System

•  School structures and culture are designed to permit time for professional collaboration: (instructional teams, lesson study, with expectations of ongoing, continuing learning)

•  Teachers “in good standing” are eligible to apply for leadership positions (mentor, instructional coach, etc.) for which they receive appropriate training

•  Leadership positions also carry additional stipends, resulting, in effect, in a career ladder

• Rather than following the “medical model” (diagnosis and prescription), collegial interactions but are designed to work on “problems of practice”

A System for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth

Questions to be Considered

•  Is one organization of the FfT (Domains/Components or

Clusters) more suitable for one purpose – coaching, professional development, evaluation – than the other?

• What are the challenges inherent in having teachers assume leadership roles within schools?

• What is the optimal role for site administrators in a school organized such that teachers take on much off the non-evaluative function of promoting teacher learning?